[council] GNSO Council draft minutes 12 May 2005

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Please find attached the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held 
on 12 May 2005.
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="12 May 2005"-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'GNSO Council Teleconference 
Minutes'"-->
<p>&nbsp; </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">12 May 2005 </font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-12may05.shtml";>agenda and 
related documents</a>  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>List of attendees:</b><br>
  Philip Sheppard - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. absent, apologies- proxy 
  to Grant Forsyth/Marilyn Cade<br>
  Marilyn Cade - Commercial &amp; Business Users C. <br>
  Grant Forsyth - Commercial &amp; Business Users C<br>
  Greg Ruth - ISCPC <br>
  Antonio Harris - ISCPC <br>
  Tony Holmes - ISCPC<br>
  Thomas Keller- Registrars - absent - apologies - proxy to Ross Rader/Bruce 
Tonkin<br>
  Ross Rader - Registrars <br>
  Bruce Tonkin - Registrars <br>
  Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries <br>
  Philip Colebrook - gTLD registries <br>
  Cary Karp - gTLD registries <br>
  Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C <br>
  Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent - apologies - 
proxy to Niklas Lagergren <br>
  Robin Gross - Non Commercial Users C.<br>
  Marc Schneiders - Non Commercial Users C. - absent - apologies - proxy Robin 
Gross/Norbert Klein/Tom Keller/Ross Rader/Bruce Tonkin <br>
 Norbert Klein - Non Commercial Users C. <br>
  Alick Wilson<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maureen Cubberley  - absent 
- apologies - proxy to Alick Wilson/ Bruce Tonkin </font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15 Council Members<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b><br>
  Paul Verhoef - Vice President, Policy Development Support<br>
  Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations<br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination <br>
  Tina Dam - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison 
  <br>
  Maria Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Support Officer<br>
  Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat <br>
  <br>
  <b>GNSO Council Liaisons</b><br>
 Bret Fausett - acting ALAC Liaison <br>
  Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Michael Palage - ICANN Board 
member<br>
  <br>
Invited guest<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan - Whois task 
force 1/2/3 chair <br>
  <br>
    <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050512.mp3";>MP3 
Recording
    </a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Quorum present at 14:07 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Bruce Tonkin</b> chaired this teleconference. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1:</b> Approval of the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-12may05.shtml";>Agenda</a> 
<br>
  Marilyn Cade requested that .net be discussed under Item 9 AOB <br>
  Bruce Tonkin proposed starting the meeting with <br>
  Item 7: Update on ICANN strategic and operational planning process<BR>
  <br>
  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-12may05.shtml";>Agenda</a> 
approved 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Item 2: Approval of the </b><br>
  <b><a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-06apr05.shtml";>Minutes of 
6 April 2005 <br>
  </a><br>
  Ken Stubbs </b> moved the adoption of the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-06apr05.shtml";>minutes of 
6 April 2005 </a><br>
  Motion  approved. One abstention from Kiyoshi Tsuru whose proxy was given to 
Niklas Lagergren <br>
  <br>
  <b>Decision 1: The <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-06apr05.shtml";>minutes of 
6 April 2005 </a>were adopted<br>
  <br>
  </b><strong>Item 2: Update on ICANN strategic and operational planning 
process</strong><br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>commented on  three areas that emerged from the 
Mar del Plata meeting:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Strategic plan<br>
2.Input on the operational plan<br>
3. Discussion on 
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">how both documents would be 
developed in future. <br>
<strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>reported that there had been consultative meeting 
with significant participation on the strategic plan  3 categories of comments 
were received  :<br>
 A few comments that required no change to the strategic plan but were included 
to complete the record.<br>
 Comments pointing to straightforward changes such as omission or errors in the 
strategic plan document <br>
 Changes that needed reflection, study and probably more community 
consultation. These were deferred to the next planning cycle.<br>
 Changes that could be made in a relatively short time were completed and 
presented to the Board with the recommendation to <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html";>repost the 
strategic plan for comment </a><br>
 The forward going planning process  will start with the strategic plan and 
commence officially in Luxembourg.<br>
 ICANN Staff flow charted and  time lined  the plan offered by <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/presentations/public-discussion-MdP-06apr05.pdf";>Chuck
 Gomes, Grant Forsyth, Marilyn Cade and Maureen Cubberley</a> with the 
intention to open more time for the planning process and insert independent 
studies.<br>
 Paul Twomey has requested Patrick Sharry to focus on ways for soliciting feed 
back in an effective manner. At the Mar del Plata meeting it was realized that 
the meeting format did not encourage good communication and it is intended to  
construct meetings where feedback can be provided in 6 different languages. <br>
 The methodology and 
 a revised timeline explaining  the strategic planning process  will be 
published shortly for review.<br>
 The operational plan has been changed, based on comments from the Mar del 
Plata meeting, communications with Dr. Paul Twomey and  senior ICANN executives 
and reviewed and accepted by the finance committee  for publication. It will  
be augmented in 2 ways:<br>
 1. Fleshed out with the staffing plan matching   the goals that are indicated 
in the budget. <br>
2. ICANN Staff Managers were asked to set milestones and dates in order to 
achieve those goals.<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An indication of how each goal 
will be measured will be published along with the ICANN budget.<br> 
The ICANN budget ,recently reviewed by the finance committee would go to the 
Budget advisory group and be published as a preliminary or proposed budget with 
the operational plan as part of it.<br>
  The operational plan will be published  on May 17, 2005 for public comment 
and for the Board to vote on in July 2005.<br>
  <strong>Kurt Pritz </strong>clarified that the Budget Advisory committee was 
composed of representatives from the Regional Internet Registries, the gTLD 
Registries, Registrars, and the ccNSO.<br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> commented hat the public comment period on the 
revised strategic plan was very short,  that it was not clear how that 
consultation would take place and what the activity level would be in those 
areas until that consultation was concluded.<br>
  <strong>Kurt Pritz</strong> responded that it would be undertaken  case by 
case,  and that money would not be spent without Board authorization as 
provided for in the bylaws. <br>
 A redlined version of the Strategic Plan was available and the Board, at its 
meeting, had decided to publish it  for public comment.<br>
 <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>proposed discussing the process for 
coordinating between the GNSO council and the ICANN staff.<br> 
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>suggested a weekly call with a few interested 
council members  to follow  administrative issues and that once a month<strong> 
Paul Verhoef</strong> could post a report on the staff activities  in 
preparation for the Council meeting.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Paul Verhoe</strong>f reported work on a  number of activities:<br>
  1. <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00933.html";>Maria
 Farrell's posting </a>on the Council list which consisted of:<br>
  a). 
a table outlining  the GNSO Council independent review and the Council's 
self-review<SPAN class=562184715-11052005><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=828431319-11052005><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
&nbsp;</font></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">which </font>summarized the two sets of recommendations and 
included staff responses and suggestions<br>
  b). a short list of current GNSO-related issues being worked on by ICANN 
staff <br>
  2. the new gTLD policy was receiving much attention and following extensive 
discussions in the Board, a number of fundamental issues need to be looked at 
before any policy development could be undertaken.<br>
 A plan was being developed internally and a brief discussion with the Board 
was foreseen to approve the way the staff was moving forward. The gNSO, ccNSO, 
and ALAC all had roles to play.<br>
  3. New registry services were up for discussion<br>
4. The Operations staff were working on issues that would be discussed later on 
the call.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
suggested that a discussion on how the staff and council collaborated on 
generating the work topics, refinements or any additions.<br>
    <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> proposed having  a project status report to 
measure the progress that matches up resources with projects and added that the 
council at its <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm";>meeting on 
January 13, 2005</a> requested an issues report on the contention for domain 
names at gTLD registries.<br>
    <strong>Paul Verhoef </strong>suggested a rolling status report with an 
overall indication of what resources would be available, and in consultation 
with the Council prioritise work items.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 3: Process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent 
and<BR>
  related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture<BR>
operation of a gTLD registry. <BR>
- <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00032.html";>review
 revised preliminary report </a>for publication for public comment </strong><br>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> reported that he had revised the preliminary 
report on the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00032.html%20";>Process
 for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual 
amendments to allow changes in the architecture<BR>
operation of a gTLD registry</a>, to take into account work done by staff in 
Cape Town where  a review and  a case study of processes in the past had been 
done, and take into account the definitions of   terms such as security and 
stability that had been defined in the draft .net agreement. Bruce proposed 
getting further input from the GNSO constituencies and then publish the 
document for formal public comment. <br>
<strong>Philip Colebrook</strong> commented that the registry constituency 
raised concerns about the broad scope of the process in terms that any kind of 
change the registry wished to make would have to go thought this process.<br>
<strong>Ken Stubbs commented</strong>  that if there were any changes in the 
agreement once it was negotiated, the Council should  look at them in the light 
of moving forward as parity was needed.<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> agreed with the principle and stated that Olof 
Nordling would track the issue.<br>
<strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> expressed caution in the process that ICANN 
should not be put in the position of making policy by writing contracts.  <br>
<br> 
<strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>proposed a procedural motion: <br>
If there were no substantial comments from the consultation process within the 
GNSO constituencies  on the  revised  preliminary report on the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00032.html%20";>Process
 for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual 
amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD 
registry</a>, within 14 days, it will be published for public comment, for a 
period of 20 days as specified in the policy development process. <br>
<br>
The Council  unanimously agreed.<br>
<br>
<strong>Decision 2. If there were no substantial comments from the consultation 
process within the GNSO constituencies on the revised preliminary report on the 
<a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/reg-com/msg00032.html%20";>Process
 for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual 
amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry, 
</a>within 14 days, it will be published for public comment, for a period of 20 
days as specified in the policy development process. <br>
</strong><br>
  <strong>Item 4: <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00917.html";>Approval
 of new terms of reference for combined WHOIS task<BR>
  force</a>, and approval of membership and voting rules  <br>
  <br>
  Bruce Tonkin </strong>referred to the  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00917.html";>new
 draft terms of reference for the combined Whois task force</a> and mentioned 
that <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00923.html";>Ross
 Rader</a> and <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00934.html";>Robin
 Gross</a> had provided feedback. <BR>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bruce Tonkin stated that the 
draft terms of reference were looking forward on work to be done and the intent 
was not to replace any work currently under way, namely the two 
recommendations:<br>
  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-notification-30nov04.pdf";>1.
 Recommendation relating to improving notification and consent for the use of 
contact data in the Whois system</a><br>
  <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>2.
 Recommendation for procedure for conflicts, when there are conflicts between a 
registrar's or registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws and their 
contractual obligations to ICANN <br>
  </a> but to incorporate it in the terms of reference which Jordyn Buchanan 
and the task force should review before the council voted on them.<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> read <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00937.html";>Jordyn
 Buchahan's comments</a>, as task force chair, to the council:<br>
  &quot;1) The task force requests that the council clearly specify whether the 
terms of reference are considered to be a new set of terms of reference or 
merely modifications to the existing terms of reference. The task force also 
requests that the council specify whether the intent is to apply the terms of 
reference to a new task force, or is re chartering the existing task 
force.&quot;<br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin </strong>clarified that the new terms of reference 
applied to the existing combined task force and the re charter was intended to 
take the existing terms of reference and focus on the work as discussed in Mar 
del Plata. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;(2) The task force requests 
that the council clearly indicate whether policy development should continue in 
each of the areas in which the task force currently has work items. 
  In the event that the council directs the task force not to continue to 
develop policy in one or more areas, we request that the council make 
appropriate provisions to conclude work and make necessary factual reports to 
council.&quot;<br>
  <strong>Ross Rader </strong>commented that Council should give  specific 
guidance and adopt the terms of reference as soon as possible so that the task 
force could move forward. <br>
  <strong>Marilyn Cade </strong>commented that under the  current chairmanship 
and with the adequate staff support, the task force could  focus  on the 
current work items  while waiting for the council to adopt the new terms of 
reference. <br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarized that in respect to the draft terms 
of reference the task force chair and staff should incorporate any current work 
that needs to be added into the terms of reference and the council should 
consider the terms of reference over the next couple of weeks and provide any 
suggested changes.<br>
  The 3 areas that the task force was currently working on: <br>
  1. Recommendation 1 which final report would be presented to  the council  
shortly. <br>
  2. Recommendation 2 where it should be decided whether the task force wanted 
to put it out as consensus policy, that is publish it  for public comment or 
whether council would forward it to the ICANN staff as advice. <br>
  3. Tiered access
  discussion which is consistent with revised terms of reference. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> who joined the call, added  the topic of 
accuracy.<br>
  <strong>Ross Rader</strong> did not  believe that there was a unified view of 
the value of the accuracy work in the combined task force if it was not 
included in the revised terms of reference and questioned whether it was 
productive to continue to work on it in the absence of consensus on the new 
terms of reference. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Brett Fausett</strong> and 
<strong>Robin Gross</strong> supported <strong>Ross Rader </strong>. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Nicklas Lagergren</strong> 
disagreed with moving accuracy aside because only one meeting had taken place 
since the December meeting in Cape Town and the Mar del Plata meeting in April 
as did <strong>Tony Harris</strong> who questioned what  tiered access would be 
provided to if there was no accurate data.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> 
stressed that it was important to look at the  overall solution that addressed 
the terms of reference, what was the purpose of the Whois, how could its 
effectiveness be improved and both access issues and accuracy of information 
needed consideration. Council had to finalize the terms of reference and the 
combined task force 1/2/3 was required to do the work specified in those terms 
of reference.<br>
  Council members and Jordyn Buchanan, the task force chair, expressed an 
urgency to move forward quickly.
      <br>
      Bruce Tonkin encouraged council members to submit comments to the <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/";>mailing lists</a> to  refine 
the terms of reference for the next council meeting on June 2, 2005.<br>
      <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong>Item 5:<a 
href="http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf";> Transfer 
policy report </a><br>
- discuss staff report, and provide guidance for the 6 monthly 
review</strong><BR>
<strong><BR>
Bruce Tonkin</strong> introduced the topic stating that  the 6 monthly review 
was due and asked council to consider issues and questions that the ICANN staff 
should examine in the 6 monthly review and how they should be handled. The gTLD 
registry constituency suggested  setting up an operational working  group to 
consider the experience gained so far and determine whether  any changes should 
be recommended which might lead to  commencing a policy development process.<br>
There was general agreement  that a process, reflecting appropriately the input 
of the users, was needed  at the council level  to regularly examine the 
implementation and impacts of any new policy  and react to data staff  
provided. No transfer policy change was advocated.<br>
<br>
<strong>Ross Rader </strong>volunteered to lead the working group and ICANN 
staff were willing to give assistance.<br>
<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bruce 
Tonkin</strong> proposed a procedural motion: <br>
  To form a working group with a representative group of volunteers from the 
GNSO to review the staff<a 
href="http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf";> Transfers 
report </a>in order to seek clarification,  further  information and provide 
guidance  for the 6 monthly review and  to report back to the Council at its 
meeting on June 2, 2005. <br>
  <br>
  The council unanimously agreed.<br>
  <strong><br>
Decision 3:To form a working group with a representative group of volunteers 
from the GNSO to review the staff<a 
href="http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf";> Transfers 
report </a>in order to seek clarification, further information and provide 
guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council at its 
meeting on June 2, 2005. </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Item 6: new gTLDs<BR>
  - discuss next steps for staff to begin to develop issues reports 
</strong><br>
  <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> summarized the council decisions since the <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml";>Council 
meeting on 29 October 2003 </a> when Milton Mueller, from the Non Commercial 
Users constituency, proposed asking for an issues report. The request was put 
on hold, as ICANN staff informed the council that a <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-strategy.pdf";>strategy for new 
gTLDs</a> was being produced.    In Mar del Plata there were discussions on new 
gTLDs in the context of the strategic plan and the GNSO council identified new 
gTLDs as one of top 3 issues of importance in its work schedule. The council 
needed to take back control of the process and indicate what the GNSO believed 
staff should be focusing on to create consensus policies in the area. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Olof Nordling 
</strong>gave a summary of the current work saying that the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-strategy.pdf";>strategy: Introduction 
of new top level domains </a>was posted and the current phase was 
implementation. <br>
Five areas had been identified, more internal consultation was required, as 
well as approval from the ICANN Board  and the GNSO Council. <br>
The issues included:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- advantages and drawbacks of 
introducing new gTLDs.<br>
- how many,  gTLDS per year<br>
- two ways of expanding the address space: new TLDs or levels in existing 
TLDs<br>
- acceptability of TLD strings<br>
- distinctions between sponsored/unsponsored /restricted/unrestricted TLDs<br>
Staff plans to provide background documents, possibly for the council meeting 
on June 2, 2005, so that the work could continue and be prioritised. <br>
 <strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that it was a core GNSO area where 
ICANN staff and the council should work closely together .<br>
 <strong>Tony Harris </strong>asked whether there would be no new round of 
gTLDS until some policy work was complete and approved, to which <strong>Olof 
Nordling </strong>answered that a test </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">auction was being investigated to gain experience. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Olof Nordling 
</strong>committed to producing a paper that  briefly identified issues for the 
next Council meeting on June 2, 2005.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>
    <strong>Item 7: Internationalized Domain Names<BR>
  - follow up on discussion in Mar del Plata initiated by Board members with 
respect to the perceived need for policy action in this area<BR>
- discuss next steps for staff to begin to develop issues report </strong><BR>
<br>
<strong>Bruce Tonkin</strong> commented that  Internationalized Domain Names 
were brought up by one of the liaisons to the ICANN Board in Mar del Plata, 
John Klensen representing the IETF.<br>
There were 2 levels: . <br>
Introducing  Internationalized Domain Names to the root and <br>
introducing  Internationalized Domain Names within existing gTLDs, such as .com 
.info . <br>
A working group within ICANN, to which the gTLD registry constituency had 
responded, had looked at deceptively similar  names.<br>
The council needed a background paper from ICANN staff, to identify and take 
action on issues within ICANN's purview.</font></p>
<p><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Item 8: Planning for ICANN 
Luxembourg meeting<BR>
- appoint member of GNSO to liaise with ICANN planning staff 
</strong></FONT></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> was 
appointed as the GNSO Council liaison with ICANN planning staff for the 
Luxembourg meeting and future meetings.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Item 9: Any other business<br>
  - dot
  net</strong><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">t was agreed to post the Council discussion on dot Net 
to the<a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/net-rfp/net-rfp-public-comments.htm";> 
ICANN public comment forum.<br>
  </a><strong><br>
  Marilyn Cade</strong> emphasized that it was a council discussion and not a 
decision, and encouraged all council members to make comments, regardless of a 
relationship with any of the bidders, stating that when regulatory agencies 
engage in anti-trust investigations in general, at times of mergers or 
acquisitions, they invited the opinion of affected parties including 
competitors to the companies planning to merge. <br>
  <br>
  In disclosure statements <strong>Ross Rader </strong>stated that Tucows had a 
contracting relationship with one of the bidders and <strong>Ken 
Stubbs</strong> stated that he was a director of Afilias, one of bidders on the 
.net re delegation.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Grant Forsyth</strong> spoke to Philip Sheppard's <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>posting 
</a>to the dot net re-delegation public comments.<br>
  <br>
&quot; The previous recommendation of council was that the major term of 
relative difference between bidding parties was competition. The Telcordia 
report appears to have interpreted it as competition between registrars in the 
registrar market as opposed to competition in the registry market. It should be 
noted that there is a major disconnect between the recommendations in Council's 
report and its implementation in the evaluation of the RFP and suggest this has 
led to the outcome that has resulted. Note that Telcordia in its report states 
that while it was left to determine the specific evaluation criteria, the 
criteria that it developed was signed off by ICANN. The Business constituency 
representatives feel that because of this disconnect between the intent of the 
GNSO Council's recommendation and its interpretation in the evaluation of the 
bid, if the ICANN Board is not of a mind to revert to the original policy 
intent, then Phillip Sheppard has made useful suggestions in his <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>posting 
</a>as to how the policy intent of competition can be remediated to a certain 
extent through suggestions that would have to be applied to the successful 
bidder. &quot; </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> in an 
individual capacity, not representing the views of the registry constituency, 
commented that a significant majority of the proposals presented to ICANN 
reflected concerns consistent with <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>Philip 
Sheppard's comments.</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Alick Wilson</strong> 
agreed with the concerns raised by <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00054.html";>Philip 
Sheppard </a> and took the position that ICANN should foster competition. 
Clearly the criteria that had been applied in the Telcordia report had 
discounted the competitive aspect to an unacceptable level. Philip Sheppard had 
proposed a mitigation should the Board go ahead and re-award dot net to 
Verisign. Alick Wilson questioned whether the mitigation Philip Sheppard 
proposed was sufficient and suggested that there should be a review of the 
criteria applied against the GNSO Council report as it appeared that the 
Telecordia assessment of did not address the issue of the weightings which 
should themselves should be looked into. <br>
  Alick Wilson further suggested that the Council develop a resolution to the 
ICANN Board and that no action be taken on the approval until the resolution 
was received by the Board. Marilyn Cade disagreed with that recommendation, 
noting that the proper area to post concerns is to the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/net-rfp/net-rfp-public-comments.htm";>.net 
public comment process</a>. She noted that the process of developing such a 
resolution within the Council was not practical, since many would have to 
recuse themselves from a vote. She stated that the Board needs to take a 
decision on .net more quickly, taking into account any proper transition 
impact. Therefore, she suggested that Council have an informational discussion 
and provide the information about the discussion to the public process. 
Everyone can post and that is more appropriate than a resolution.<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bruce Tonkin</b> 
<b>declared 
  the GNSO meeting closed and thanked everybody for participating.<br>
The meeting ended: 16: 34 CET. </b></font></p>
<ul>
  <li> 
    <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next GNSO Council 
</b><strong>Teleconference</strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><br>
      see: <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>Calendar</a></font><br>
  </li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"--> </font>